Part B: Supporting 

Statement for 

Paperwork Reduction 

Act Submission

Study of Teacher 

Preparation 

Experiences and Early

Teacher Effectiveness

Phase II–Data Collection

May 2, 2014

Prepared for:

Melanie Ali

Institute of Education Sciences

555 New Jersey Ave, NW

Room 502b

Washington, DC 20208-5500

Submitted by:

Abt Associates Inc.

55 Wheeler Street

Cambridge, MA 02138

In Partnership with:

Belmont Research Associates

The Bench Group

Cornell Survey Research Institute

Dillon-Goodson Research Associates

Education Analytics

Pemberton Research
DRAFT OMB Supporting Statement Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs

Abt Associates Inc. Contents ▌pg. i

Part B: Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submission

Table of Contents

B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods.....................................................3

Introduction..................................................................................................................................3

B.1 Respondent Universe and Sampling Methods...................................................................6

B.1.1 Respondent Universe...........................................................................................6

B.1.2 Sampling Methods...............................................................................................6

B.1.3 Expected Response Rates....................................................................................7

B.2 Statistical Methods for Sample Selection and Degree of Accuracy Needed.....................7

B.2.1 Sample Selection .................................................................................................7

B.2.2 Estimation Procedures.........................................................................................7

B.2.3 Degree of Accuracy Needed..............................................................................11

B.2.4 Unusual Problems Requiring Specialized Sampling Procedures ......................16

B.2.5 Use of Periodic Data Collection Cycles to Reduce Burden...............................16

B.3 Methods to Maximize Response Rates and Deal with Nonresponse...............................16

B.3.1 Teacher Survey..................................................................................................16

B.3.2 Extant Student Administrative Data ..................................................................17

B.4 Test of Procedures and Methods To Be Undertaken.......................................................17

B.4.1 Teacher Survey..................................................................................................17

B.5 Individuals Consulted on Statistical Aspects of the Design ............................................19

References..................................................................................................................................20
DRAFT OMB Supporting Statement Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs

Abt Associates Inc. Contents ▌pg. ii

Table of Exhibits

Exhibit B-2. Assumptions About Numbers of Mathematics and Reading/ELA Classes Taught.........12

Exhibit B-3. Assumed Plausible Ranges for Variance Components, R-Squares, Classes per 

Teacher, and Students per Class...........................................................................................................13

Exhibit B-4. MDEs for Various Scenarios—RQ1................................................................................15

Exhibit B-5. MDEs for Various Scenarios—RQ2................................................................................15

Exhibit B-6. Years of Student Outcome Data Needed to Calculate Teacher Value-Added.................17

Appendices

Appendix 1: District Administrative Records Collection Protocol

Appendix 2: Teacher Survey 
DRAFT OMB Supporting Statement Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs

Abt Associates B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. 3

B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is conducting a study examining the relationship between teacher 

preparation experiences and early teacher effectiveness (The Study of Teacher Preparation Experiences 

and Early Teacher Effectiveness, formerly known as The Study of Promising Features of Teacher 

Preparation Programs). This Information Collection Request (ICR) is the second of two ICRs for the 

study. The first ICR (Phase I—Recruitment; OMB-PRA: 1850-0891) requested clearance for recruitment 

activities. This second ICR, Phase II—Data Collection, requests clearance for data collection activities 

(obtaining teacher contact information from districts, collecting data from teachers on preparation 

experiences via an online teacher survey, and obtaining student data from districts). The packages have 

been submitted separately because the process of recruiting districts had to begin before the teacher 

survey was developed and piloted.

1

This study is sponsored by ED’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and is being implemented by Abt 

Associates Inc. and its partners: Belmont Research Associates, The Bench Group, Cornell Survey 

Research Institute (SRI), Dillon-Goodson Research Associates, Education Analytics (EA), and Pemberton 

Research (together, the “study team”).

Overview of the Study

Title II, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act—the Improving Teacher Quality State 

Grants program—focuses on improving teacher quality and increasing the number of highly qualified 

teachers. This study, which is the first of its kind, is about how to improve teacher quality through more 

effective preparation of new teachers. It will look at how the nature and intensity of preparation 

experiences are related to teacher effectiveness in promoting student achievement. For the purposes of 

this study, “teacher effectiveness” is defined as teacher value-added (TVA). The study will measure TVA 

using analytic techniques that isolate teacher contributions to student test score gains. The study has three 

primary questions:

1) What are the relationships between teacher preparation experiences and teacher effectiveness in 

the first year of teaching, measured by teacher value-added? (RQ1)

2) What are the relationships between teacher preparation experiences and teacher effectiveness 

with English learners in the first year of teaching, measured by teacher value-added for English 

learners? (RQ2)

3) Do relationships between teachers’ preparation experiences and teacher effectiveness in the first 

year of teaching differ depending on teachers’ assessments of the usefulness of the preparation 

experiences? (RQ3) 

 

1 At the time of the first ICR, the study design called for an experiment; however, efforts to recruit teacher pairs 

which met the experiment’s requirements were unsuccessful, and therefore a value-added approach is now the 

focus of the study.
DRAFT OMB Supporting Statement Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs

Abt Associates B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. 4

Measuring Preparation Program Experiences 

To answer the research questions, the study needs to identify preparation experiences that could 

reasonably be hypothesized to affect student test scores. The challenge is that little or no research has 

examined relationships between preparation experiences and test scores. (The 2010 National Research 

Council report on teacher preparation highlighted this lack of research.) However, the recent Measures of 

Effective Teaching (MET) Study (Kane & Staiger, 2012) did identify a set of teacher practices related to 

test score gains. The study team used the MET study as a framework for identifying preparation 

experiences that would foster these practices. The survey asks teachers to rate the frequency of these 

experiences in their teacher preparation program.

Specifically, in the MET study, teachers were rated on their instructional practices using four different 

observation systems. This process resulted in each teacher being rated on practices in 32 domains of 

instruction. The study team distilled these 32 domains into 12 broad topic areas, which form the basis for 

the teacher survey questions about preparation experiences. This reduction was based primarily on data 

from the MET study on (a) the distribution of teacher ratings on each practice, (b) the relationship of 

teacher ratings on each practice to teacher value-added scores, and (c) correlations of the practices across 

the four measures. For each of the 12 topic areas, the study team developed a small set of specific 

instructional strategies from the coding manuals for the four MET measures. The strategies align with 

teaching behaviors that coders are trained to look for as evidence of a teacher’s skill with the measurespecific practices. Finally, the study team conducted cognitive interviews with teachers to ensure that the 

instructional strategies were being interpreted as intended.

The same kind of evidence provided by the MET study to inform the identification of instructional 

practices for the general classroom does not exist for English learner-specific practices. Some evidence 

does exist, however, at the individual strategy level. The study used four research syntheses and the 2007 

and 2014 IES Practice Guides on instruction for English learners to identify English learner-specific 

instructional strategies that are supported by evidence of improving English learner achievement (August 

& Shanahan, 2006; Baker et al., 2014; Calderón, Slavin & Sanchez, 2011; Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, 

Kieffer, & Rivera, 2006; Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders & Christian, 2006; Gersten, Baker,

Shanahan, Linan-Thompson, Collins & Scarcella, 2007). A set of English learner-specific strategies were 

selected by 1) eliminating redundancies across strategies that were identified in multiple reviews, 2) 

consulting content experts to guide and prioritize the selection of strategies, and 3) conducting cognitive 

interviews with teachers to ensure that the strategies were being interpreted as intended. The final set of 

English learner-specific instructional strategies were grouped together into one English learner-specific 

topic area on the survey.

Sample

An analysis of statistical power indicated that a sample of 6,450 teachers is needed to answer the primary 

research questions with reasonable precision. To meet this sample size, the study aims to include as many 

teachers as possible in recruited districts who teach reading/English language arts (ELA) and/or 

mathematics, the two subject areas consistently tested across states. Because analyses will be conducted 

separately by subject, focusing on elementary-grade teachers increases the likelihood that each teacher 

contributes to both the reading/ELA and mathematics sample, which reduces the cost of recruiting 

districts and teachers. Fourth grade is the lower bound for the teacher sample due to data availability—

proficiency testing typically begins in third grade, which means fourth grade is the first grade for which 
DRAFT OMB Supporting Statement Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs

Abt Associates B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. 5

two years of test scores needed to estimate TVA are available (i.e., test scores from grades 3 and 4). The 

study selected sixth grade as the upper bound because it is assumed to be the highest elementary grade.2

Limiting the study to first-year teachers would minimize issues with recalling preparation experiences. 

However, data on teachers entering the teaching force indicated that meeting the sample size requirement 

would require two years of data collection (i.e., recruiting teachers in 2014-15 and again in 2015-16). To 

limit data collection to one year, the study decided to include teachers in their second or third years of 

teaching for whom TVA in their first year of teaching could be estimated. The three-year upper bound is 

driven by concerns about recalling preparation program experiences for teachers who have been teaching 

for more than three years. 

Teachers in their first through third years will be asked the same questions about their teacher preparation 

experiences. The primary analyses will examine the relationship of teachers’ preparation experiences to 

effectiveness in their first year. For example, a teacher in her second year in 2014-2015 will be asked 

about her preparation experiences and those experiences will be related to her value-added in the previous

year, which corresponds to her first year of teaching.3

The teacher sample will be recruited from a purposive sample of approximately 80 large and moderatesized school districts across the country that can meet the student-teacher data linkage requirements for 

estimating TVA. Targeted districts include the 10 largest districts in the United States (based on the 

expected number of eligible teachers) and other moderate-to-large districts (or local education agencies). 

For the majority of these districts, the study team is currently conducting research projects, has existing 

partnerships, and/or has access to key decision makers. The targeted districts are in 33 states and more 

than 40 percent of them include more than 10 percent English learners. Districts will be asked to provide 

the study team with teacher contact information for administering the (online) teacher survey on 

preparation experiences in spring 2015. The study team will also request student data from districts to 

estimate teacher value-added. The data will include student scores on state assessments (reading/ELA and 

mathematics) and student demographic data. 

Analysis and reporting 

Hierarchical analysis (students nested within classes nested within teachers) will be used to estimate the 

relationship between preparation program experiences and student test scores, controlling for student, 

class, teacher, and school baseline covariates. Reading/ELA and Mathematics scores will be analyzed 

separately. For the subset of teachers with five or more English learners, the study will examine the 

relationship between general preparation experiences and the test scores of English learners as well as 

English learner-specific preparation experiences and the test scores of English learners. The study team 

will produce a study report that is expected to be available by fall 2017. 

Phase II—Data collection request

 

2

In some school districts, some or all of the sixth grade classrooms will be in middle schools. However, data from 

the Common Core indicates that a substantial proportion of sixth grade classrooms will be in elementary schools. 

3

If second- or third-year teachers have not taught in an eligible grade or subject in their first year but have in their 

second and/or third year of teaching, they will still be surveyed and included in secondary analyses examining the 

relationship of teacher preparation experiences to teacher effectiveness in the second and/or third years of 

teaching. Only second- or third-year teachers who meet the eligibility criteria in their first year of teaching will be 

included in the sample used to answer the primary research questions.
DRAFT OMB Supporting Statement Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs

Abt Associates B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. 6

This ICR seeks clearance to obtain the following data: 

 From school districts:

 Teacher contact information (emails, phone numbers) for first-, second-, and third-year 

teachers in the district in the 2014–15 school year;

 Student data: 

 Reading/ELA and mathematics state assessment data for students in grades three 

to six for four years (2011–12 through 2014–15); 4

 Student demographic data (English learner status, Special Education status,

free/reduced price lunch status, gender, race/ethnicity) for students in each year 

of test data.

 From teachers:

 Data to verify sample eligibility, to determine teacher preparation pathway, to measure 

background characteristics, and to assess the frequency and usefulness of preparation 

experiences.

This ICR provides a detailed discussion of the study data collections and the analysis and reporting of the 

data, as well as an overview of the study, including its design and data collection procedures. Copies of 

the data collection instruments (the teacher survey and the District Administrative Records Collection 

Protocol) are included in the appendices.

B.1 Respondent Universe and Sampling Methods

B.1.1 Respondent Universe

The study team will construct a sample of teachers in recruited school districts that meet the following 

eligibility criteria for the primary analyses—eligible teachers must be 1) in their first, second, or third 

year of teaching; 2) responsible for teaching reading/ELA or mathematics during their first year of 

teaching to at least one general education classroom of fourth- through sixth-grade students.

5 All teachers, 

regardless of pathway (e.g., traditional, alternative, Teach for America), will be eligible. 

B.1.2 Sampling Methods

The study will recruit approximately 80 districts. Targeted districts include the 10 largest districts in the 

United States (based on the expected number of eligible teachers) and other moderate-to-large districts.

For the majority of these districts, the study team is currently conducting research projects, has existing 

partnerships, and/or has access to key decision makers. The targeted districts are in 33 states and 40 

percent of them include more than 10 percent English learner students. 

 

4

For districts that administer state tests in the fall of each year, data will be obtained for students in grades four to 

seven for SY2012–13 through SY2015–16.

5

Second- and third-year teachers who have not taught in an eligible grade or subject in their first year but have in 

their second and/or third year of teaching will be surveyed and included in secondary analyses examining the 

relationship of preparation experiences to teacher effectiveness in the second or third year of teaching.
DRAFT OMB Supporting Statement Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs

Abt Associates B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. 7

Given the large sample size needed to answer the primary research questions (n = 6,450), the study team 

intends to construct a purposive sample of teachers that includes all eligible teachers in districts that agree 

to participate in the study. Districts will be asked to provide contact information for all first-, second-, and 

third-year teachers in the district in the 2014-15 school year.6 The study team will use the student-teacher

linkages that are part of the student assessment data to further narrow the sample to first-, second-, and 

third-year teachers who meet the grade and subject criteria listed above. This set of teachers will be sent 

the teacher survey and their eligibility will be confirmed via questions at the beginning of the teacher

survey. While the anticipated study sample will not have formal representativeness in the strict statistical 

sense, it will span a large number of districts and states across the nation.

B.1.3 Expected Response Rates

The study plans for a 100 percent response rate for teacher contact information and student administrative 

data since participating districts will have agreed to provide these data. The study plans for an 80 percent 

response rate for the teacher survey. The high rate is based on 1) districts being asked to encourage 

teachers to participate in the survey; 2) the use of a multi-mode follow-up strategy that involves social 

media, email, phone calls, and opportunities for teachers to complete the survey on the phone or in hard 

copy; and 3) offering a modest incentive to complete the survey.

B.2 Statistical Methods for Sample Selection and Degree of Accuracy Needed

B.2.1 Sample Selection

Please see section B.1.2 above for a detailed description of the study’s sampling strategy.

B.2.2 Estimation Procedures

This section presents the study’s estimation approach for addressing the three primary research questions.

1. What are the relationships between teacher preparation experiences and teacher effectiveness 

in the first year of teaching, measured by teacher value-added?

To address the first research question, the study team will analyze relationships between teacher 

preparation program experiences (TPPEs) and teacher effectiveness, measured by value-added. TPPEs are 

defined as the frequency of specific types of preparation experiences related to the representative 

instructional strategies within each key instructional topic areas. For each topic area, four analytic 

variables representing the four types of preparation experiences will be created: 1) opportunities to “read 

about, hear about, or see a role play of the strategies, such as during coursework;” 2) opportunities to 

“observe a teacher using the strategies in a K-12 classroom (in videos or during fieldwork or student 

teaching);” 3) opportunities to “practice the strategies in a K-12 classroom prior to becoming a full-time 

teacher;” and 4) opportunities to “receive feedback on your use of the strategies, including what you did 

well or how you could improve, from program staff or a cooperating teacher.” These TPPE measures will 

be used as explanatory variables in the analytic models. 

 

6

Since districts may only count years of teaching in their district when reporting teachers’ years of experience, the 

survey will ask teachers to confirm that they are in the first, second or third year of their teaching career (not 

limited to their tenure in their current district).
DRAFT OMB Supporting Statement Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs

Abt Associates B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. 8

Overview of Approach

The relationship of TPPEs will be examined separately for reading/ELA and mathematics but the analysis 

approach will be identical. For both outcomes, the study team will combine data from different school 

districts and grade levels to estimate relationships between TPPEs and value-added. May et al. (2009) 

argue that the decision of whether to combine data across grades or states should be driven primarily by a 

study’s research questions. Combining scores across grades or states is appropriate when the study’s 

questions are about student performance on state tests. Combining scores is inappropriate when the 

study’s questions are about attainment of specific skills. Because the current study’s primary research 

questions fall into the first category—relating TPPEs to value-added, as measured by student performance 

on state tests—combining data across states and grades is appropriate. 

The study will use a two-stage approach to analyze the relationship between preparation experiences and 

value-added. The first stage will produce TVA scores for each teacher. Each TVA score is a measure of 

the extent to which a teacher’s students experienced achievement growth over a school year, adjusting for 

student characteristics. In this stage, achievement scores will first be standardized using state and year 

means and standard deviations. The study then will fit models using data from each unique combination 

of state, grade, and year, which will yield a set of state/grade/year-specific TVA scores. In participating 

districts, test scores of all students in relevant grades will be used in the stage 1 analysis. The use of all 

student data in the relevant grades will increase the precision of the estimated coefficients and resulting 

TVA score estimates.

In stage 2, the set of state/grade/year-specific TVA scores will be combined into a single data set. Using 

the combined data set, regression models will be estimated with the TVA score as the dependent variable 

and one or more TPPE measures as independent variables, as well as grade and state dummies, and other 

statistical controls. Only the TVA scores of teachers who have completed the survey on preparation 

experiences will be used in the second stage analysis. Each of the two stages is described in more detail 

below. 

Analytic Model for Stage 1

The stage 1 analysis will produce a TVA estimate for each teacher. The approach will utilize a 

hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) framework, which is common in education research. The analytic

model is a three-level hierarchical linear model with students (level-1) nested in classes (level-2), and

classes nested in teachers (level-3).

7 The level-1 model has student prior year scores and other student

characteristics as covariates. The level-2 model includes average student measures ‘centered’ at the

teacher-level mean (the overall mean at the teacher level will be subtracted from the classroom mean).

The level-3 model includes these covariates aggregated to the teacher-level. In the level-3 model, the

dependent variable is the conditional TVA and the level-3 residual is the part of the TVA that has not 

been explained by covariates. The level-3 residuals from the stage 1 analyses are used as the dependent 

variable in the stage 2 analysis. Note that the model does not include dummies (“fixed effects”) for 

schools.8

 

7 The study assumes that more than half of fifth- and sixth-grade teachers will teach more than one class in a single 

school year.

8

Inclusion of fixed effects for schools limits the analysis sample to teachers from schools where there is more than 

one eligible teacher in the school and where two or more teachers have different values on the TPPE measures of 
DRAFT OMB Supporting Statement Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs

Abt Associates B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. 9

Specifically, the level-1 model, or student-level model is:

 =  + ∑ 





(-.) + 

The level-2 model or class-level model is:

 =  + ∑ 





(. - .. ) +

The level-3 model or teacher-level model is:

 =  + ∑ 





(..) + ∑ 





() + 

where, in the level-1 model,

is the spring reading/ELA or mathematics achievement test score from i

th student ( i in

1,2,...,n) in the j

th class, ( j in 1,2,..., J), nested in the kth teacher (k in 1,2,...,K

teachers).

(X –X. ) is the m

th of M student characteristics (e.g., prior year test score, gender, race/ethnicity 

age, English learner status, free/reduced price lunch status), centered at the classlevel mean.

is the student-level error, assumed distributed normal with mean zero and variance

α is the covariate adjusted mean of achievement scores for the j

th class of the kth teacher.

In the level-2 model,

(X. - X.. ) are the student characteristics aggregated up to class-level means, and centered around

the teacher’s mean.

is the class-level error, assumed distributed normal with mean zero and variance

In the level-3 model,

 

interest. This approach could result in a very small analysis sample that would be a poor representation of the full 

sample of teachers that will be surveyed. 

Yijk

ijk e

2

e

ujk

2

u
DRAFT OMB Supporting Statement Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs

Abt Associates B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. 10

 is the conditional mean of achievement scores for the k

th teacher (i.e., the conditional 

TVA score)

 is the conditional grand mean (predicted mean for teachers when all teacher-level

covariates are zero).

(..) are the means of student characteristics for the k

th teacher, averaged over all of the

classes taught by the k

th teacher.

() are measures of school characteristics (e.g., percent LEP, percent FRPL), and

dummies for district.

 is the teacher-level error, assumed distributed normal with mean zero and variance

As mentioned above, this model will be fit separately for each unique combination of state, grade, and 

school year. The fitted models will produce an estimated TVA “score” (the level-3 residual ) and its

standard error. 

Analytic Model for Stage 2

In stage 2, a data set will be created that merges teachers’ TPPE measures and their TVA scores from 

stage 1. Regression models will be used to estimate the relationships between TPPEs and TVA scores. 

These models will use the TVA as the dependent variable and TPPE measures, measures of perseverance

and leadership (which are collected via the survey to account for selection), and indicator variables for 

state, grade, and teachers’ years of experience at the time of the survey as explanatory variables.9 The 

outcome variable in the model (TVA score) will be weighted inversely proportional to the square of the 

standard error of the TVA score, which means teachers with more precisely estimated TVA scores will 

receive more weight in the estimation.

2. What are the relationships between teacher preparation experiences and effectiveness with 

English learners in the first year of teaching, measured by teacher value-added for English 

learners? 

To address the second research question about relationships of TPPEs to value-added for English learners, 

the models described in the previous section will be fit to subsets of data consisting of student outcomes 

for English learners, and teachers of classes that have a minimum of five English learners. Specifically, in 

the stage 1 models that yield TVA estimates, all of the student-level (level-1) outcomes and covariate data 

will be specific to only English learners. For the class-level (level-2) and teacher-level (level-3) covariates 

that represent aggregates of student characteristics, the data from all students (English learner and nonEnglish learner) will be aggregated such that these measures will represent the characteristics of all of the 

students in a teacher’s class or classes. These models will yield state, grade, and year-specific TVA 

estimates that pertain to only English learners. Only teachers with at least five English learners and their 

English learner-specific TVA estimates will be used in the stage 2 models. Measures of TPPEs will 

 

9

Some teachers may have multiple TVA records. If there are more than a negligible number of teachers with 

multiple records, the model will be fit as a two-level hierarchical model with repeated observations at level-1 and 

teachers at level-2.

2

k
DRAFT OMB Supporting Statement Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs

Abt Associates B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. 11

include general measures (i.e., the same measures as will be assessed in the primary research question) 

and TPPEs that are ELL-specific. 

3. Do relationships between teachers’ preparation experiences and effectiveness in the first year of 

teaching differ depending on teacher assessments of the usefulness of the experiences? 

In addition to rating the frequency of specific types of preparation experiences related to key instructional 

topic areas, teachers are also asked on the survey to rate the usefulness of their TPPEs. 

To answer this research question, descriptive data will be tabulated from the usefulness items to describe 

teachers’ perceptions of the usefulness of TPPEs for first, second and third year teachers separately, and 

for all teachers combined. The stage 2 analytic models described above will also be estimated, but in each 

model, the TPPE measure of interest will be replaced with a dichotomous variable for usefulness: 1 =

useful (if TPPE is rated as useful or very useful), 0 = not useful (if TPPE rated as not useful or a little 

useful). The coefficient for the usefulness variable will represent the relationship between the perceived 

usefulness of a TPPE and TVA. That is, it will address the question of whether TPPEs that are rated as 

useful are more strongly associated with teacher effectiveness than TPPEs that are rated as not useful.

A secondary research question about the usefulness of TPPEs is whether teachers’ assessment of the 

usefulness of their experiences changes over time. A descriptive analysis will compare the proportions of 

teachers who describe a TPPE as useful among the first-, second-, and third-year teacher samples.

B.2.3 Degree of Accuracy Needed

For power calculations, the study team used a simplified version of the two-stage analytic approach

described above. This simplified version includes key concepts of the two-stage approach but omits

complications from combining data across states and grade levels.10

To conceptualize the power and sample size calculations, the study team focused on the estimate of the 

effect of a single TPPE, controlling for other TPPEs. For clarity and notational convenience, this variable

is referred to as the TPPE measure.

A review of the research on the relationship between TPPEs and teacher effectiveness (Price et al., 2013) 

indicated that effects of TPPEs on TVA are likely to be small. For power calculations, the study team 

operationalized a “small” effect to be 0.05 standard deviation units for the effects of a binary measure of a 

TPPE (the measure takes the value “1” if the teacher had the experience and “0” if not). To calculate the 

sample size needed to detect an effect of 0.05, the study has made assumptions about 1) the numbers of 

mathematics and reading/ELA classes taught by teachers in a school year; 2) the distribution of the TPPE 

measure; and 3) hypothesis tests, variance components, explained variance, numbers of classes per 

teacher, and number of students per class.

For the first research question, the results of these calculations indicate that to detect small effects (a 

minimal detectable effect (MDE) of 0.05 standard deviation units) of TPPEs on TVA for mathematics 

outcomes, the study needs data for 4,500 teachers. Similarly, to detect small effects of TPPEs on TVA for 

 

10 This simplification entails combining the stage 1 and stage 2 models described above into a simplified three-level 

model that essentially adds the TPPE measures and selection controls to the stage 1 model. The resulting 

combined model is assumed to be estimated with data from a single state and grade level.
DRAFT OMB Supporting Statement Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs

Abt Associates B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. 12

reading/ELA, the study needs data for 4,500 reading/ELA teachers. Because some teachers will teach 

both mathematics and reading/ELA while some will not, a total sample of 6,450 teachers is needed.

For the second research question concerning the relationships of TPPEs to TVA for teachers of English 

learners, the study is estimated to have data for 3,000 teachers of mathematics and 3,000 teacher of 

reading/ELA—two-thirds of the full sample of teachers who will have at least five English learners in 

their classes. Because some teachers will teach both mathematics and reading/ELA while some will not, 

the total sample will consist of 4,300 teachers with at least five English learners in their classrooms. This 

sample will yield an MDE of 0.062 standard deviation units.

Assumptions about numbers of reading and mathematics classes taught by each teacher

The study will focus on fourth-, fifth- and sixth-grade teachers. Separate models will be estimated for 

TVA in reading/ELA and mathematics. Sample size calculations assume that one-third of completed 

surveys will come from teachers in each of the three grades. Because some fifth- and sixth-grade classes 

are departmentalized, with a teacher teaching only reading/ELA or mathematics, the sample size 

calculations account for the fact that not all teachers will contribute scores to both reading/ELA and 

mathematics. Exhibit B-2 presents the assumptions used in sample size calculations concerning the 

proportions of fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade teachers who teach 1) a single class with both subjects 

(mathematics and reading/ELA); 2) two mathematics classes but zero reading/ELA classes; or 3) teach 

two reading/ELA classes but zero mathematics classes. Based on the assumptions presented in the exhibit,

on average, mathematics teachers will be responsible for 1.4 mathematics classes and reading/ELA 

teachers will be responsible for 1.4 reading/ELA classes. 

Exhibit B-2. Assumptions About Numbers of Mathematics and Reading/ELA Classes Taught

Teach one class of 

reading/ELA and one 

class of mathematics

Teach two classes of 

reading/ELA and no 

classes of mathematics

Teach two classes of 

mathematics and no 

classes of 

reading/ELA Total

Fourth 100% 0% 0% -

Fifth 50% 25% 25% -

Sixth 20% 40% 40% -

Total # of teachers 2,550 1,950 1,950 6,450

Reading/ELA sample size 2,550 1,950 - 4,500

Mathematics sample size 2,550 - 1,950 4,500

Assumptions about the distribution of the TPPE measure

The power analysis for a TPPE measure depends on the distribution of that variable. For example, for a 

dichotomously coded (yes or no) TPPE measure, power is greatest (required sample size is smallest) if 

the distribution of the TPPE measure is such that 50 percent of the sample has a TPPE value of 1, and 50 

percent of the sample has a value of 0. The study team developed the sample size requirements based on a 

more plausible scenario in which the TPPE measure had values of 20 percent “yes” and 80 percent “no.”

Assumptions about hypothesis tests, variance components, r-squares, classes per teacher, and students 

per class

The study uses standard statistical assumptions regarding conducting two-tailed hypothesis tests with 

alpha-level criterion p< 0.05 with 80 percent power. The study also makes assumptions about 1) values of 

the variance components; 2) the proportion of variance explained by covariates; 3) the average number of 
DRAFT OMB Supporting Statement Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs

Abt Associates B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. 13

students per class; 4) the average number of classes per teacher; and 5) the correlation of covariates with 

the TPPE measure, which is termed the Rsq.TPPE Dependent Measure.

11

For assumptions regarding the first four parameters listed above, the study team used ranges of plausible 

values from the literature and previous educational evaluations (Exhibit B-3). For the fifth parameter, 

previous literature did not provide guidance so the study team selected a range that was reasonable. 

Within the ranges of plausible values for these five parameters, there are an infinite number of scenarios, 

based on varying sets of assumptions. A typical power analysis would choose several exemplary

scenarios and show sample sizes or MDEs for each of those scenarios. The study team adopted a more 

flexible approach. A plausible range of assumptions for each of the parameters was specified and a Monte 

Carlo methodology was used to make a random draw from a uniform distribution within the specified 

range for each parameter. For each of 5,000 Monte Carlo draws, the MDE that resulted for the draw was 

calculated.

12 The Monte Carlo procedure yields MDE estimates for a wide range of possible scenarios. All 

scenarios assumed a two-sided hypothesis test with alpha = 0.05 criterion, 80 percent power, and a threelevel HLM model of the form described in the previous section. Exhibit B-3 summarizes the assumed 

plausible ranges of parameters used for the Monte Carlo simulations. 

Exhibit B-3. Assumed Plausible Ranges for Variance Components, R-Squares, Classes per 

Teacher, and Students per Class

Parameter Min Max

Level 1 Variance 0.50 0.80

Level 2 Variance 0.00 0.30

Level 3 Variance 0.08 0.50

Total Variance 1 1

Level 1 R-square 0.50 0.75

Level 2 R-square 0.10 0.40

Level 3 R-square 0.40 0.70

Rsq.TPPE Dependent Measure 0.10 0.50

Classes Per Teacher 1.43 1.43

Students Per Class (RQ1) 18 25

Students Per Class (RQ2-ELLs) 5 15

Estimated MDEs

For RQ1, MDE estimates from the Monte Carlo simulations are summarized in Exhibit B-4. Across the 

5,000 simulations, the mean of the MDE was 0.05 and ranged from around 0.031 to 0.078. These results 

indicate that with data from 4,500 mathematics teachers, the expected MDE is between 0.031 and 0.078. 

Averaged over all assumption sets, the MDE is 0.050. The same estimates apply to data from 4,500 

reading/ELA teachers.

 

11 This label can be read as “R-square when the TPPE measure is regressed on the other covariates.”

12 In each of the 5,000 Monte Carlo draws, an MDE was calculated using a modified form of Equation 13 from 

Schochet (2008). The modification was the addition of a term in the denominator that inflates the variance of the 

treatment effect as a function of the correlation of covariates with the TPPE measure (i.e., as a function of the 

term Rsq.TPPE Dependent Measure). 
DRAFT OMB Supporting Statement Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs

Abt Associates B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. 14

For RQ2, additional assumptions must be made about the proportion of teachers from the main sample 

that will have classes with five or more English learners. For these calculations, the study assumed that 

two-thirds of the teachers in the main sample will have classes with five or more English learners (the 

study’s districts are large and likely to be urban, which supports this assumption). Across the 5,000 

simulations, the mean of the MDE for English learners was 0.062 and ranged from 0.038 to 0.096.
DRAFT OMB Supporting Statement Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs

Abt Associates B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. 15

Exhibit B-4. MDEs for Various Scenarios—RQ1

# Teachers w/ 

complete data # Teachers used in analysis Distribution of key variable

Other 

assumptions

MDE

Mean (min, max)

2,550 ELA & 

mathematics

1,950 mathematics 

only

1,950 ELA only

6,450 total

2,550 mathematics and ELA

1,950 mathematics or ELA

4,500 total

Binary TPPE measure w/ 80%-20% split:

900 with TPPE measure = 1 (20%)

3,600 with TPPE measure = 0 (80%)

See Exhibit B-3 .050, (.031, .078)

Exhibit B-5. MDEs for Various Scenarios—RQ2 

# Teachers w/ 5+ 

English learners

and complete data # Teachers used in analysis Distribution of key variable

Other 

assumptions

MDE

Mean (min, max)

1,700 ELA & 

mathematics

1,300 mathematics 

only

1,300 ELA only

4,300 total

(2/3 of teachers w/ 

complete data)

1,700 mathematics and ELA

1,300 mathematics or ELA

3,000 total

Binary TPPE measure w/ 80%-20% split:

600 with TPPE measure = 1 (20%)

2,400 with TPPE measure = 0 (80%)

See Exhibit B-3 .062 (.038, .096)
DRAFT OMB Supporting Statement Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs

Abt Associates Inc. B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. 16

B.2.4 Unusual Problems Requiring Specialized Sampling Procedures

No unusual problems that require specialized sampling procedures are anticipated.

B.2.5 Use of Periodic Data Collection Cycles to Reduce Burden

This is a one-time data collection effort.

B.3 Methods to Maximize Response Rates and Deal with Nonresponse

This section describes the strategies and methods that will be used to maximize response rates for the 

teacher survey.

To obtain responses from the study teacher sample, the study team has developed strategies to facilitate 

communication with respondents during data collection activities and to maximize response rates. These 

strategies have proven successful in the study team’s extensive experience conducting large-scale 

evaluation studies (e.g., The Reading First Impact Study, Evaluation of the U.S. Department of 

Education’s Student Mentoring Program, Evaluation of the Massachusetts Expanded Learning Time

Initiative, The Enhanced Reading Opportunities Study, The Career Academies Evaluation, and The 

Teacher Incentive Fund Evaluation).

B.3.1 Teacher Survey

The study team will administer online surveys to all eligible teachers in recruited districts. Teachers will 

be provided with an individualized link to their survey by email. The online survey technology is userfriendly, especially because new teachers are likely to have used the web extensively, and also minimizes 

the burden that is associated with returning paper surveys by mail.

Teachers may not want to take the time necessary to complete the survey. Alternatively, they may be 

willing to participate, but only if the study team makes it easy for them to do so, or offers them something 

in return. The study team will use four strategies to increase teacher response rates:

 Encouragement from districts. During recruitment, the study team will explore ways that the 

district might be willing to encourage teachers to complete the survey. This might include 

expressing their support for the study by sending out a letter of support or publicizing the study in 

a district newsletter or on district websites. 

 Personalized access. Invitations to participate in the survey will be personalized and include a 

password embedded link to the survey. 

 Provide for multiple modes for completion. Respondents will be able to complete the survey 

online, but if requested, they can receive a hard copy of the survey or complete the survey by 

phone.

 Make use of reminders. The study team will use reminder emails. Individual responses to the 

surveys will be tracked in the survey software, and targeted reminders will be sent every four to 

five days to those who have not completed the survey. The study team will also make phone calls 

to non-respondents after three email reminders to encourage them to complete their surveys. The

call will be an opportunity to complete the survey by phone or the study team will ask teachers 

for additional contact information and the best time and method to allow them to complete the 

survey.
DRAFT OMB Supporting Statement Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs

Abt Associates Inc. B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. 17

There will be an incentive payment to teachers.Incentives are appropriately used in federal statistical 

surveys with respondents whose failure to participate would jeopardize the quality of the survey data 

(Graham, 2006). Given the importance of obtaining a high response rate for this project, the study team 

intends to offer a $30 incentive to teachers who complete the survey. Based on previous studies, an 80 

percent response rate is expected.

B.3.2 Extant Student Administrative Data

During recruitment, study team members will execute data release agreements with districts. Each district 

will be asked for four years of student data to be able to estimate value-added from 1) the first year of 

teaching for all eligible teachers (first-, second- and third-year teachers); 2) the second year of teaching 

for all eligible second- and third-year teachers; and 3) the third year of teaching for all eligible third-year 

teachers (see Exhibit B-6).

Exhibit B-6. Years of Student Outcome Data Needed to Calculate Teacher Value-Added

Teacher Sample 1

st Year of Teaching 2nd Year of Teaching 3rd Year of Teaching

1

st year teachers Spring 2014 & 2015 NA NA

2

nd year teachers Spring 2013 & 2014 Spring 2014 & 2015 NA

3

rd year teachers Spring 2012 & 2013 Spring 2013 & 2014 Spring 2014 & 2015

Student administrative data will be requested twice during the study period. The first data capture will be 

in late 2014. This data capture will request student data from spring 2012, spring 2013, and spring 2014.

The second data capture will be in fall 2015, which will be a request for the final student data from spring 

2015. Each data request will be for data from all students in the district in grades three through six, to 

allow for the estimation of teacher value-added for fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade teachers.13

B.4 Test of Procedures and Methods To Be Undertaken

B.4.1 Teacher Survey

During the 60-day comment period, the teacher survey will be pilot tested. The pilot test will ensure that 

the instructions are understandable, the content is comprehensible, and the length is reasonable. The pilot 

test will be conducted with a purposive sample of teachers who represent traditional and alternative 

certification preparation programs and are in their first, second or third year of teaching. These teachers 

will be recruited from districts not being asked to participate in the study.

The teacher survey includes questions in four areas: eligibility, preparation pathway, background 

characteristics, and preparation program experiences (Appendix 2). In the first area, questions will be

asked to confirm eligibility for the study. These questions will ask teachers about their year of teaching 

(in any district) and whether they are or have been responsible for teaching reading/ELA and/or 

mathematics to at least one classroom of general education students in grades 4, 5 or 6 in any of the 

following school years: 2012-13, 2013-14 or 2014-15.

The second area includes questions on teachers’ preparation pathway that come from surveys used in two 

previous studies: 

 

13 For districts that administer state tests in the fall of each year, data will be obtained for students in grades four 

through seven for SY2012–13 through SY2015–16.
DRAFT OMB Supporting Statement Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs

Abt Associates Inc. B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. 18

 The Teacher Pathway Project (Boyd et al., 2009)—Survey of Program Graduates, Survey of First 

Year Teachers, Survey of Second Year Teachers;14 and 

 The Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction Study (Glazerman et al., 2008). 

The third area includes questions on demographics including age, gender, race/ethnicity and two 

background characteristics that will be used to control for selection bias. These two background 

characteristics were identified in research on Teach for America as being related to teacher effectiveness 

(Dobbie, 2011). The first is a measure of perseverance. The survey includes the eight-item version of the 

Grit Scale (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009), a validated measure of perseverance that has been used in a 

number of previous studies and has been shown to be related to measures of academic persistence and 

performance. The second is a measure of leadership skills. The survey includes two items about teachers’ 

involvement in initiating or holding a leadership position in a club or organization during their 

undergraduate career. 

The fourth area includes 13 items that ask for teachers’ reports on the frequency of specific preparation 

experiences. The survey is a new measure developed for the current study; there were no prior surveys 

asking these same questions. The study team used the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) study

(Kane & Staiger, 2012) as a framework for developing 12 of the survey items. The MET study reports 

evidence on instructional practices observed in a large sample of teachers that are related to TVA. The 

study team developed one English learner-specific item based on the existing literature. The survey items 

ask about preparation experiences related to the development of selected general and English learnerspecific instructional topic areas in new teachers. 

The 13 survey items on teacher preparation experiences follow the same item format. Each item is 

organized around a single topic area. These topic areas were distilled from the larger set of instructional 

practices measured in the MET study. For each topic area, the respondent is asked about experiences 

related to a small set of (four to five) specific instructional strategies that are examples of the overarching 

topic area. The instructional strategies also were derived from the MET observation measures; they were 

drawn from the coding manuals for the MET observation measures, in which definitions were provided 

about specific instructional behaviors that observers were looking for in order to rate a teacher on a 

broader instructional practice. For each of the instructional strategies, respondents are asked to rate the 

frequency of four types of preparation experiences that teacher candidates might experience as part of 

their teacher preparation program: 1) opportunities to “read about, hear about, or see a role play of this 

strategy, such as during coursework;” 2) opportunities to “observe a teacher using this strategy in a K-12 

classroom (in videos or during fieldwork or student teaching);” 3) opportunities to “practice this strategy 

in a K-12 classroom prior to becoming a full-time teacher;” or 4) opportunities to “receive feedback on 

your use of this strategy, including what you did well or how you could improve, from program staff or a 

cooperating teacher.” Teachers are instructed to include in their responses all preparation experiences

 

14 Surveys retrieved from: http://cepa.stanford.edu/tpr/teacher-pathway-project#quicktabs-pathway_project=1
DRAFT OMB Supporting Statement Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs

Abt Associates Inc. B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. 19

prior to becoming a teacher of record for the first time as well as preparation experiences that might be 

received during their first, second or even third year in the classroom.15

The survey items on experiences include an additional question about teachers’ perceptions of the 

usefulness of their preparation experiences in their classroom teaching. This question is asked for each 

instructional strategy.

B.5 Individuals Consulted on Statistical Aspects of the Design

The following individuals were consulted on the statistical aspects of the study:

Name Title/Affiliation Telephone

Dr. Fatih Unlu Senior Scientist, Abt Associates 617-520-2528

Dr. Mark Dynarski Director, Pemberton Research 609-443-1981

Mr. Cristofer Price Principal Scientist, Abt Associates 301-634-1852

The following individuals will be responsible for the data collection and analysis:

Name Title/Affiliation Telephone

Dr. Tamara Linkow Associate, Abt Associates 617-520-2978

Dr. Yasamin Miller Director, Cornell Survey Research Institute 607-225-3786

Dr. Fatih Unlu Senior Scientist, Abt Associates 617-520-2528

Dr. Mark Dynarski Director, Pemberton Research 609-443-1981

Mr. Cristofer Price Principal Scientist, Abt Associates 301-634-1852

Dr. Robert Meyer Director, Education Analytics 608-265-5663

Dr. Andrew Rice Associate Director, Education Analytics 608-890-3789

 

15 Second- and third-year teachers who have not completed their programs at the time of the survey but who will be 

included in the primary analyses because they have first-year TVA will be reporting on preparation experiences 

that are happening after the outcome. The study team expects this to be a small subset of second- and third-year 

teachers and will conduct sensitivity analyses to determine if excluding these teachers from the analyses affects 

the overall findings.
DRAFT OMB Supporting Statement Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs

Abt Associates Inc. B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. 20

References

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in a second-language: Report of the National 

Literacy Panel on Language Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 

Associates.

Baker, S., Lesaux, N., Jayanthi, M., Dimino, J., Proctor, C. P., Morris, J., Gersten, R., Haymond, K., 

Kieffer, M. J., Linan-Thompson, S., & Newman-Gonchar, R. (2014). Teaching academic content and 

literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014-4012). Washington, DC: 

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education 

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE website: 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx.

Boyd, D.J., P.L. Grossman, H. Lankford, S. Loeb, and J. Wyckoff. (2009). Teacher preparation and 

teacher effectiveness. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 416.

DOI:10.3102/0162173709353129.

Calderón, M., Slavin, R., & Sánchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. The Future of

Children, 21(1), 103-127.

Dobbie, W. (2011). Teacher characteristics and student achievement: Evidence from Teach for America. 

Mimeo, Harvard University.

Duckworth, A. L. & Quinn, P. D. (2009). Development and Validation of the Short Grit Scale (Grit-S).

Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2), 166-174.

Francis, D. J., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical guidelines for the 

education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for instruction and 

academic interventions. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.

Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W. M., & Christian, D. (Eds.) (2006). Educating English 

language learners: A synthesis of research evidence. Cambridge University Press.

Gersten, R., Baker, S.K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. (2007). Effective 

literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades. National 

Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, US 

Department of Education.

Glazerman, S., S. Dolfin, M. Bleeker, A. Johnson, E. Isenberg, J. Lugo-Gil, M. Grider, and E. Britton. 

(2008). Impacts of comprehensive teacher induction: Results from the first year of a randomized 

controlled study (NCEE 2009-4034). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and 

Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Graham, J.D. (2006). Questions and answers when designing surveys for information collections.

Washington, D.C.: Office of Management and Budget.

Kane, T.J. & D.O. Staiger. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality observations 

with student surveys and achievement gains. MET Project Policy and Practice Brief prepared for Bill 

and Melinda Gates Foundation.
DRAFT OMB Supporting Statement Study of Promising Features of Teacher Preparation Programs

Abt Associates Inc. B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ▌pg. 21

May, H., Perez-Johnson, I., Haimson, J., Sattar, S., & Gleason, P.. (2009). Using state tests in education 

experiments: A discussion of the issues (NCEE 2009-013). Washington, DC: National Center for 

Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education.

Price, C., Goodson, B., Dynarski, M., Unlu, F., Caswell, L., & Shivji, A.. (2013). A review of the 

research on the relationship between teacher preparation programs and teacher effectiveness.

Unpublished manuscript. Bethesda. MD: Abt Associates.

Schochet, P.Z. (2008). Statistical power for random assignment evaluations of education programs. 

Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 33(1), 62–87.